Why the Resistance’s Weapon Is a Red Line

Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh

---------
Strategic Issues

Some are attempting to soften the notion of “disarming the resistance,” presenting it as a national interest at this stage—on the premise that the Israeli assault and the ongoing Palestinian bloodshed can only be halted if Hamas and other resistance forces surrender their weapons. Regardless of the intentions behind such arguments, Hamas and the resistance do not have the luxury of choosing alternatives portrayed as serving the higher interests of the Palestinian people, because the nature of the Zionist project and its conduct on the ground have made armed resistance the only viable option—no matter how costly. Simply put:

1. Disarming the resistance is akin to stripping the Palestine issue of its soul—leaving its people to a defanged and declawed population, and at the mercy of their enemy’s will and whims.

2. Israel has launched a “zero-sum” military and political campaign aimed at implementing the “Decisive Plan,” which seeks to dismantle the peace process and the two-state solution, impose annexation and Judaization in the West Bank (WB), eliminate resistance in the Gaza Strip (GS), and ultimately erase the Palestine issue. In this context, resistance has become an unavoidable path.

This “Decisive Plan” was previously theorized by Bezalel Smotrich, leader of the Religious Zionism party, in a vision he published in 2017. He later joined Netanyahu’s government with the goal of putting it into action. At the end of the same year, the Likud Central Committee voted in favor of annexing WB and urged Likud Knesset members to support the move if it were to be presented in the Knesset.

3. Disarming the Resistance in GS would dismantle the core protective barrier, effectively surrendering to the will of occupation. This would grant Israel unchecked freedom to invade GS, continuing its campaign of killings, assassinations, and destruction at will. It would also allow the occupation to further tighten the siege and escalate displacement… under any pretext, without any deterrent. In this context, disarmament would not stop the Zionist project from advancing in its efforts to Judaize both the land and the people of Palestine, and bring an end to the Palestine issue. Israel has no commitment to refrain from annexing territories, displacing people, or turning Palestinian lives into enforced environments of exile.

As for WB, which was not part of Operation al-Aqsa Flood and where the Palestinian Authority (PA) collaborates with Israel in targeting the resistance, it is now at the “eye of the storm” for annexation and displacement plans. It faces the dismantling and reorganization of its authority into cantons, functioning as a service-oriented entity aligned with the occupation.

4. The strong resistance in GS has inflicted substantial military and economic losses on Israel, driven large numbers of its settlers to flee abroad, triggered internal crises, secured a dignified prisoner exchange deal, and isolated Israel globally. It has also undermined Israel’s narrative and shaken the foundations of its settler colonial stability in both security and economy. Disarming the resistance would extricate Israel from its profound predicament, transforming Zionist colonization into a cost-free, “five-star” occupation, while enabling its settlement and Judaization agenda to advance unchecked. In the process, blame is unfairly shifted onto the Palestinian people, as if their fate and future are solely dictated by the Israeli will.

5. Disarming the resistance is a punishment for the victim and a reward for the aggressor, while the one who should be punished and disarmed is the occupier.

6. Disarming the resistance lacks logical, legal, political, moral and humanitarian justification, as resistance is a legitimate and inherent right of peoples under occupation, as affirmed by international law and United Nations resolutions.

7. Disarming the resistance provides an “implicit legitimization” for the occupation and the Zionist narrative, portraying Israel as the victim, equating the resistance with “terrorism,” and presenting the disarmament process as a response to the aggression against a UN member state and its “right to self-defense.”

8. The resistance has always served as a shield and bulwark for Arab and Islamic security, as well as for the strategic environment surrounding occupied Palestine. Netanyahu and several prominent figures in his ruling coalition have expressed their intention to expel the Palestinians and expand Israel’s security doctrine, turning the state into a dominant and destabilizing force in the region. Disarming the resistance would create a conducive environment for Israel to execute its plans.

9. The historical experiences of nations that chose to disarm and submit to occupation have been catastrophic. In contrast, those who insisted on continuing their resistance, despite great sacrifices, are the ones who ultimately achieved their freedom and independence, such as Algeria, Afghanistan and Vietnam.

One of the greatest catastrophes of the Oslo Accords was the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) agreeing to forgo armed resistance entirely, opting instead to address negotiations and conflicts with the Israeli occupation exclusively through peaceful means. They even went as far as to prohibit any armed resistance within the territories under their control. Today, we witness a project that has subordinated itself to the will of the occupier for over thirty years. Instead of achieving an independent state, it has become a tool for executing the occupier’s agenda and suppressing resistance, while the occupation continues its expansion, Judaizing the land and holy sites. It steadily moves toward annexing WB and dismantling the PA into fragmented cantons and enclaves, having fulfilled its temporary purpose and been drained of all value, leaving only its discarded shell behind!!